If they're not getting paid $120k, they're not high-paid. Even calling $120k 'high-paid' is a bit of a stretch.

How do you explain Elizabeth Warren?

Yeah, you have low empathy. Can't see outside your own little world.

Oh, we actually are. Cheaper resources almost always open more options. If you could get programmers for $2 an hour, it would mean that all your QA resources could be programmers too. You could build each project twice, then take the better of the two.

And there are plenty of boring automation tasks that businesses do that they can't afford to have automated. Microsoft CRM is incredibly customizable in order to meet this market. Another example is SAP. It sucks in so many ways, companies would be better off writing their own custom software in-house. But they can't afford that, so they go with SAP instead.

As something becomes more affordable, legitimate uses open up for them. Think of secretaries: a good secretary that can take dictation is much better than computer-dictation software, but they're too expensive, so the software is a secondary substitute.

Oh yeah, that is a problem. Those companies paying lesser salaries should pay more, like Google and Facebook.

The only way to find someone who has no 'preconceived position' is to find someone who knows nothing about the topic. Anyone who looks deeply at the topic is going to see that H1Bs are underpaid, and that to hire one, you might need to interview fifty different people (and find legitimate-sounding reasons they couldn't do the job) who respond to your fake job posting.

That is the reality of the situation. The tech industry does want "cheap, young and immobile labor." Saying that does not make you biased.

Whether or not there is a shortage depends on your point of view. It's a supply and demand situation. We have the supply, but there will never be enough supply for the people who want to hire programmers at $2 an hour. If there are fewer programmers, salaries will rise until companies who can't afford them drop out, and the demand matches the supply.

There can never be an absolute shortage of programmers, there can only be a shortage of programmers willing to work for a certain salary.

Exactly. There is no reason to replace hardware that works when the newer product will cost money and perform no better (and could even perform worse).

Oh man, if you have to ask, you'll never know. F-150 Raptor is beautiful too.

Yeah you're right, I was braindead this morning when I posted that.

But they lust after the F-350.

Probably postfix sendmail. Adobe is catching up.

Sometimes I wonder what people think a "zero day" exploit means. If there is a patch, it's not a zero-day exploit. From the (of course, always wrong) wiki:

Zero-day vulnerabilities make hackers happy because the users don't know about it, and thus can't prevent exploitation. Once the vulnerability is made public, you can block access to that port, or disable the functionality, or avoid exploitation in other ways. It is no longer a zero-day vulnerability.

IF the vuln was made public 5 days ago, then it's a five-day vuln. If the vuln was made public 10 days ago, then it's a ten-day vuln. Once it's patched, it's no longer a vulnerability. That is where the name 'zero-day' comes from.

Indeed. Even the blogger who had his lines cut is (surprisingly) calm about it. He says:

If a few inches are going to make a difference, then you should already be making your levees a couple feet higher.

We don't need to. We can borrow it.